EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

Marthe Bonamy†1, Édouard Bonnet∗2, Nicolas Bousquet†3, PierreCharbit†2,4, and Stéphan Thomassé2,5

1 CNRS, LaBRI, Université de Bordeauxmarthe.bonamy@u-bordeaux.fr

2 Université de Lyon (COMUE),CNRS, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude-Bernard Lyon 1,LIP, Lyon, Franceedouard.bonnet@dauphine.fr, stephan.thomasse@ens-lyon.fr

3 CNRS, G-SCOP laboratory, Grenoble-INP, Francenicolas.bousquet@grenoble-inp.fr

4 Université Paris Diderot - IRIF, Paris, Francecharbit@irif.fr

5 Institut Universitaire de France

Abstract

We propose a polynomial-time algorithm which takes as input a finite set of points of R3 andcomputes, up to arbitrary precision, a maximum subset with diameter at most 1. More precisely,we give the first randomized EPTAS and deterministic PTAS for Maximum Clique in unitball graphs. Our approximation algorithm also works on disk graphs with arbitrary radii, in theplane.

Almost three decades ago, an elegant polynomial-time algorithm was found for MaximumClique on unit disk graphs [Clark, Colbourn, Johnson; Discrete Mathematics ’90]. Since then, ithas been an intriguing open question whether or not tractability can be extended to general diskgraphs. Recently, it was shown that the disjoint union of two odd cycles is never the complementof a disk graph [Bonnet, Giannopoulos, Kim, Rzążewski, Sikora; SoCG ’18]. This enabled theauthors to derive a QPTAS and a subexponential algorithm for Max Clique on disk graphs.In this paper, we improve the approximability to a randomized EPTAS (and a deterministicPTAS). More precisely, we obtain a randomized EPTAS for computing the independence numberon graphs having no disjoint union of two odd cycles as an induced subgraph, bounded VC-dimension, and linear independence number. We then address the question of computing MaxClique for disks in higher dimensions. We show that intersection graphs of unit balls, likedisk graphs, do not admit the complement of two odd cycles as an induced subgraph. This, incombination with the first result, straightforwardly yields a randomized EPTAS for Max Cliqueon unit ball graphs. In stark contrast, we show that on ball graphs and unit 4-dimensionaldisk graphs, Max Clique is NP-hard and does not admit an approximation scheme even insubexponential-time, unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis fails.

Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs...

∗ This work was performed within the framework of the LABEX MILYON (ANR-10- LABX-0070) ofUniversité de Lyon, within the program "Investissements d’Avenir" (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated bythe French National Research Agency (ANR)

† This work has been supported by the ANR Project DISTANCIA (ANR-17-CE40-0015) operated bythe French National Research Agency (ANR).

licensed under Creative Commons License CC-BYLeibniz International Proceedings in InformaticsSchloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl Publishing, Germany

arX

iv:1

803.

0182

2v2

[cs

.CG

] 1

1 A

pr 2

018

XX:2 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

1 Introduction

In an intersection graph, the vertices are geometric objects with an edge between any pairof intersecting objects. Intersection graphs have been studied for many different familiesof objects due to their practical applications and their rich structural properties [13, 29].Among the most studied ones are disk graphs, which are intersection graphs of closed disksin the plane, and their special case, unit disk graphs, where all the radii are equal. Theirapplications range from sensor networks to map labeling [22], and many standard optimiza-tion problems have been studied on disk graphs, see for example [36] and references therein.Most of the hard optimization and decision problems remain NP-hard on disk graphs andeven unit disk graphs. For instance, disk graphs contain planar graphs [27] on which sev-eral of those problems are intractable. However, shifting techniques and separator theoremsmay often lead to subexponential classic or parameterized algorithms [3, 9, 28, 33]. Manyapproximation algorithms have been designed specifically on (unit) disk graphs, or moregenerally on geometric intersection graphs, see for instance [17, 21, 23, 30, 31, 35] to citeonly a few. Besides ad hoc techniques, local search and VC-dimension play an important rolein the approximability of problems on (unit) disk graphs. For the main packing and coveringproblems (Maximum Independent Set, Min Vertex Cover, Minimum DominatingSet, Minimum Hitting Set, and their weighted variants) at least a PTAS is known.

However, all the techniques that we mentioned are only amenable to packing and coveringproblems. The Maximum Clique problem is arguably the most prominent problem whichdoes not fall into those categories. For example, anything along the lines of exploiting asmall separator cannot work for Maximum Clique, where the densest instances are thehardest. Therefore, it seems that new ideas are necessary to get improved approximate orexact algorithms for this problem. This is why, in this paper, we focus on solving MaximumClique on (unit) disk graphs in dimension 2 or higher.

Previous results.

In 1990, Clark et al. [18] gave an elegant polynomial-time algorithm for Maximum Cliqueon unit disk graphs when the input is a geometric representation of the graph. It goesas follows: guess in quadratic time the two more distant centers of disks in a maximumclique (at distance at most 2), remove all the centers that would contradict this maximality,observe that the resulting graph is co-bipartite. Hence, one can find an optimum solutionin polynomial time by looking for a maximum independent set in the complement graph,which is bipartite. However, recognizing unit disk graphs is NP-hard [14], and even ∃R-complete [26]. In particular, if the input is the mere unit disk graph, one cannot expectto efficiently compute a geometric representation in order to run the previous algorithm.Raghavan and Spinrad showed how to overcome this issue and suggested a polynomial-timealgorithm which does not require the geometric representation [32]. Their algorithm is asubtle blind reinterpretation of the algorithm by Clark et al. It solves Maximum Cliqueon a superclass of the unit disk graphs or correctly claims that the input is not a unit diskgraph. Hence, it cannot be used to efficiently recognize unit disk graphs.

The complexity of Maximum Clique on general disk graphs is a notorious open questionin computational geometry. On the one hand, no polynomial-time algorithm is known, evenwhen the geometric representation is given. On the other hand, the NP-hardness of theproblem has not been established, even when only the graph is given as input.

The piercing number of a collection of geometric objects is the minimum number of pointsthat hit all the objects. It is known since the fifties (although the first published records

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:3

of that result came later in the eighties) that the piercing number of pairwise intersectingdisks is 4 [19, 34]. An account of this story can be found in a recent paper by Har-Peledet al. [24]. Ambühl and Wagner observed that this yields a 2-approximation for MaximumClique [5]. Indeed, after guessing in polynomial time four points hitting a maximum cliqueand removing every disk not hit by those points, the instance is partitioned into four cliques;or equivalently, two co-bipartite graphs. One can then solve optimally each instance formedby one co-bipartite graph and return the larger solution of the two. This cannot give asolution more than twice smaller than the optimum. Since then, the problem has provedto be elusive with no new positive or negative results. The question on the complexityand further approximability of Maximum Clique on general disk graphs is considered asfolklore [8], but was also explicitly mentioned as an open problem by Fishkin [22], Ambühland Wagner [5]. Cabello even asked if there is a 1.99-approximation for disk graphs withtwo sizes of radii [15, 16]. Recently, Bonnet et al. [12] showed that the disjoint union oftwo odd cycles is not the complement of a disk graph. From this result, they obtained asubexponential algorithm running in time 2O(n2/3) for Maximum Clique on disk graphs,based on a win-win approach. They also got a QPTAS by calling a PTAS for MaximumIndependent Set on graphs with sublinear odd cycle packing number due to Bock etal. [11], or branching on a low-degree vertex.

Our results.

Our main contributions are twofold. The first is a randomized EPTAS (Efficient Polynomial-Time Approximation Scheme, that is, a PTAS in time f(ε)nO(1)) for Maximum Independ-ent Set on graphs of X (d, β, 1). The class X (d, β, 1) denotes the class of graphs whoseneighborhood hypergraph has VC-dimension at most d, independence number at least βn,and no disjoint union of two odd cycles as an induced subgraph (for formal definitions seeSection 2).

I Theorem 1. For any constants d ∈ N, 0 < β 6 1, for every 0 < ε < 1, there is arandomized (1 − ε)-approximation algorithm running in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for MaximumIndependent Set on graphs of X (d, β, 1) with n vertices.

Using the forbidden induced subgraph result of Bonnet et al. [12], it is then easy toreduce Maximum Clique on disk graphs to Maximum Independent Set on X (4, β, 1)for some constant β. We therefore obtain a randomized EPTAS (and a PTAS) for MaximumClique on disk graphs, settling almost1 completely the approximability of this problem.

I Theorem 2. There is a randomized EPTAS for Maximum Clique on disk graphs,even without geometric representation. Its running time is 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for a (1 − ε)-approximation on a graph with n vertices.

The second contribution is to show the same forbidden induced subgraph for unit ballgraphs as the one obtained for disk graphs. The proofs are radically different and the classesare incomparable. So the fact that the same obstruction applies for disk graphs and unitball graphs might be somewhat accidental.

I Theorem 3. A complement of a unit ball graph cannot have a disjoint union of two oddcycles as an induced subgraph. In other words, if G is a unit ball graph, then iocp(G) 6 1.

1 The NP-hardness, ruling out a 1-approximation, is still to show.

XX:4 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

In the previous statement iocp denotes the induced odd cycle packing number of a graph,i.e., the maximum number of odd cycles as a disjoint union in an induced subgraph. Again,Theorem 1 and Theorem 3 naturally lead to:

I Theorem 4. There is a randomized EPTAS in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for Maximum Cliqueon unit ball graphs, even without the geometric representation.

Before that result, the best approximation factor was 2.553, due to Afshani and Chan [1].In particular, even getting a 2-approximation algorithm (as for disk graphs) was open.

Finally we show that such an approximation scheme, even in subexponential time, isunlikely for ball graphs (that is, 3-dimensional disk graphs with arbitrary radii), and unit4-dimensional disk graphs. Our lower bounds also imply NP-hardness. To the best of ourknowledge, the NP-hardness of Maximum Clique on unit d-dimensional disk graphs wasonly known when d is superconstant (d = Ω(logn)) [2].

In the following paragraphs, we sketch the principal lines of our two main contributions.

EPTAS for Maximum Independent Set on X (d, β, 1)

The first main result of this paper asserts that if a graph G satisfies that every two oddcycles are joined by an edge, the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension of the hypergraph of theneighborhoods of G is bounded, and α(G) is at least a constant fraction of |V (G)|, then α(G)can be computed in polynomial time at any given precision. More precisely, we present inthat case a randomized EPTAS running in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) and a deterministic PTAS.

Our algorithm works as follows. We start by sampling a small subset of vertices. Hopingthat this small subset is entirely contained in a fixed optimum solution I, we include theselected vertices to our solution and remove their neighborhood from the graph. Due tothe classic result of Haussler and Welzl [25] on ε-nets of size O(d/ε log 1/ε) (where d is theVC-dimension), this sampling lowers the degree in I of the remaining vertices. We computea shortest odd cycle. If this cycle is short, we can remove its neighborhood from the graphand solve optimally the problem in the resulting graph, which is bipartite by assumption.If this cycle is long, we can efficiently find a small odd-cycle transversal. This is shown bya careful analysis on the successive neighborhoods of the cycle, and the recurrent fact thatthis cycle is a shortest among the ones of odd length.

The complement of the union of two odd cycles is not a unit ball graph

Given a needle in R3 whose middlepoint is attached to the origin, one can apply a continuousmotion in order to turn it around (a motion à la Kakeya, henceforth Kakeya motion). AKakeya motion can be seen as a closed antipodal curve on the 2-sphere. If we now considertwo needles, each with a Kakeya motion, then the two needles have to go through a sameposition. This simply follows from the fact that two antipodal curves on the 2-sphereintersect. The second main result of this paper is a translation of this Jordan-type theoremin terms of intersection graphs: The complement of a unit ball graph does not contain thedisjoint union of two odd cycles. The proof can really be seen as two Kakeya motions, eachone along the two odd cycles, leading to a contradiction when the needles achieve paralleldirections.

Together with the first result, it implies a randomized EPTAS for Maximum Cliqueon disk graphs, and for the following problem: Given a set S of points in R3, find a largestsubset of S of diameter at most 1.

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:5

Organization

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some relevant notationsfor graphs and elementary geometry, the definitions of VC-dimension, disk graphs, andapproximation schemes. We finish this section by introducing a class of graphs parameterizedby three constants: the VC-dimension, the ratio independence number divided by numberof vertices, and the maximum number of odd cycles that can be found as a disjoint unionin an induced subgraph. In Section 3, we design a randomized EPTAS for MaximumIndependent Set on this class. In Section 4, we show that complements of unit ballgraphs do not have a disjoint union of two odd cycles as an induced subgraph. This yields arandomized EPTAS for Maximum Clique on unit ball graphs (as well as on disk graphs).This is tight in two directions: having different values of radii, and the dimension of theambient space. Indeed, we complement this positive result by showing that MaximumClique is unlikely to even have a QPTAS on ball graphs where all the radii are arbitrarilyclose to 1, and on 4-dimensional unit ball graphs. In Section 5, we make some observationsabout the EPTAS and propose some lines of thoughts on how to tackle the computationalcomplexity of Maximum Clique in disk and unit ball graphs.

2 Preliminaries

Graph notations

Let G be a simple graph. We denote by G its complement, i.e., the graph obtained bymaking every non-edge an edge and vice versa. V (G) and E(G) represent its set of verticesand its set of edges, respectively. We denote by α(G) the independence number of G, i.e.,the size of a maximum independent set (or stable set), and by ω(G) the clique number ofG, i.e., the size of a maximum clique. For S ⊆ V (G), its open neighborhood, denoted byNG(S), is the set of vertices that are not in S and have a neighbor in S, and its closedneighborhood is defined by NG[S] = S ∪ NG(S). We omit the subscript G if the graph isobvious from the context and we write NG(x) instead of NG(x).

The odd cycle packing number of G, denoted by ocp(G), is defined as the maximumnumber of vertex-disjoint odd cycles and the induced odd cycle packing number of G, denotedby iocp(G), is the maximum number of vertex-disjoint odd cycles with no edge between anytwo of them.

VC-dimension

VC-dimension has been introduced by Vapnik and Chervonenkis in the seminal paper [37].Let H = (V,E) be a hypergraph. A set X of vertices of H is shattered if for every subsetY of X there exists a hyperedge e ∈ E such that e ∩ X = Y . An intersection between Xand a hyperedge e of E is called a trace (on X). Equivalently, a set X is shattered if all its2|X| traces exist. The VC-dimension of a hypergraph is the maximum size of a shatteredset. As an abuse of language, we call VC-dimension of a graph G, denoted by VCdim(G),the VC-dimension of the neighborhood hypergraph (V (G), NG(v) | v ∈ V (G)).

Geometric notations

For a positive integer d, we denote by Rd the d-dimensional euclidean space. If x and y aretwo points of Rd, xy is the straight-line segment whose endpoint are x and y. We denoteby d(x, y) the euclidean distance between x and y. A d-dimensional closed disk is defined

XX:6 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

from a center x ∈ Rd and a radius r ∈ R+, as the set of points y ∈ Rd | d(x, y) 6 r, i.e.,at distance at most r from x. The diameter of a subset S ⊆ Rd is defined as sup

x,y∈Sd(x, y).

The piercing number (also called hitting set or transversal) of a collection O of geometricobjects in Rd is the minimum number of points of Rd that pierce (or hit) all the objects ofO, i.e., each object contains at least one of these points.

Disk graphs and their forbidden induced subgraphs

A d-dimensional disk graph is the intersection graph of d-dimensional closed disks of Rd. Weshorten 2-dimensional disk graph in disk graph, and 3-dimensional disk graph in ball graph.A d-dimensional unit disk graph is the intersection graph of unit d-dimensional closed disksof Rd, that is, disks with radius 1. Unit d-dimensional disk graphs can be thought of onlywith points: vertices are points (at the center of the disks) and two points are adjacent ifthey are at distance at most 2. In particular, solving Maximum Clique on those graphs isequivalent to finding a maximum sub-collection of points whose diameter is at most a fixedvalue.

Bonnet et al. established the following obstruction for disk graphs.

I Theorem 5 ([12]). The complement of a disk graph cannot have the disjoint union of twoodd cycles as an induced subgraph.

This can be equivalently rephrased as: if G is a disk graph, then iocp(G) 6 1.

Approximation schemes

A PTAS (Polynomial-Time Approximation Scheme) for a minimization (resp. maximiza-tion) problem is an approximation algorithm which takes an additional parameter ε > 0 andoutputs in time nf(ε) a solution of value at most (1 + ε)OPT (resp. at least (1 − ε)OPT)where OPT is the optimum value. Observe that from now on, we consider that approxim-ation ratios of maximization problems are smaller than 1, unlike the convention we used inthe introduction. An EPTAS (Efficient PTAS) is the same with running time f(ε)nO(1), anFPTAS (Fully PTAS) is in time 1

ε

O(1)nO(1), a QPTAS (Quasi PTAS) is in time npolylog n for

every ε. Finally, and this is quite informal and not standard, we call SUBEXPAS (subex-ponential AS) an approximation scheme with running time 2n0.99 for every ε. All thoseapproximation schemes can come deterministic or randomized.

The class X (d, β, i)

In the next section, we present a randomized EPTAS and a deterministic PTAS for ap-proximating the independence number α on graphs with constant VC-dimension, linearindependence number, and induced odd cycle packing number equals to 1.

Actually, we extend these algorithms to the case iocp(G) = i, for any constant i. LetX (d, β, i) be the class of simple graphs G satisfying:

VCdim(G) 6 d,α(G) > β|V (G)|, andiocp(G) 6 i.

For any positive constants d, β < 1, i, we get a deterministic PTAS and a randomizedEPTAS for Maximum Independent Set on X (d, β, i).

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:7

3 EPTAS for Maximum Independent Set on X (d, β, i)

We start by showing that X (d, β, 1) has a randomized EPTAS.

I Theorem 1. For any constants d ∈ N, 0 < β 6 1, for every 0 < ε < 1, there is arandomized (1 − ε)-approximation algorithm running in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for MaximumIndependent Set on graphs of X (d, β, 1) with n vertices.

Proof. Let H be a graph in X (d, β, 1) with n vertices and I be a maximum independentset of H. In particular, |I| > βn. Since finding a maximum independent set in a bipartitegraph can be done in polynomial time, we get the desired (1 − ε)-approximation if we canfind a vertex-set T such that:

T is an odd-cycle transversal, i.e., its removal yields a bipartite graph, and|T ∩ I| 6 ε|I|.

At high level, our algorithm will thus select and remove some odd-cycle transversals T ,and then apply the bipartite case algorithm. We will do this at least once for a set T thatsatisfies the second item, with some strong guarantee. Of course the key ingredient in findinga suitable odd-cycle transversal is the fact that iocp(H) 6 1. Indeed, this implies that forany odd cycle C, the set N [C] is an odd-cycle transversal.

Let c := 8( 1(βε)2 + 1

βε + 1) = O(1/ε2), δ := εc = O(ε3), and s := 10d

δ log 1δ . We call

short odd cycle an odd cycle of length at most c, and long odd cycle an induced odd cycleof length more than c. First we can assume that βn is larger than 2s, otherwise we can findan optimum solution by brute-force in time 2n = 2O(1/ε3). Hence, |I| > 2s.I Claim 1. There exists a subset S ⊆ I of size s = 10d

δ log 1δ such that N(S) contains all

vertices that have more than δ|I| neighbors in I.

Proof. Let A denote the set of vertices v such that |N(v) ∩ I| > δ|I|. We define thehypergraph K := (I, N(v) ∩ I, v ∈ A). By assumption on H, the hypergraph K has VC-dimension d. By definition of K, all its edges have size at least δ|V (K)|. A celebrated resultin VC-dimension theory by Haussler and Welzl [25], later improved by Blumer et al. [10],ensures that every such hypergraph K admits a hitting set (a set of vertices that intersectsevery edge) of size at most 10d

δ log 1δ . J

Algorithmically, we have two ways of selecting the set S, leading to a deterministic PTASor a randomized EPTAS. Either we run the rest of the algorithm for every subset of V (H)of size 10d

δ log 1δ inducing an independent set (which constitutes nf(ε) possible sets), or we

use another result proven in [25]: not only the hitting set exists but a uniform sampleof V (K) of size 10d

δ log 1δ is a hitting set with high probability. So we do the following

t := d log(10−10)log(1−(β/2)s)e = 2O(1/ε3) many times: we select uniformly at random a set S of size

s = 10dδ log 1

δ , and continue the rest of the algorithm if S is an independent set. Since|I| > 2s, it holds that Pr(S ⊆ I) > (β/2)s. As we try out t samples, at least one satisfiesS ⊆ I with probability at least 1− (1− (β/2)s)t > 1− 10−10.

We now assume that the sample S satisfies the properties of Claim 1. We start by puttingin T all the vertices of N(S) (note that no such vertex is in I since I is an independent set).We define the graph H ′ := H−N(S). We got rid of the vertices with at least δ|I| neighborsin I: in H ′, there are no such vertices anymore. We want to find an odd-cycle transversalin H ′ that has few vertices in I.

XX:8 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

We now run a polynomial-time algorithm (see for instance [4]) that determines whetherthe graph is bipartite and, if not, outputs a shortest odd cycle Cog in H ′.

If H ′ is bipartite, then T := NH(S) is an odd-cycle transversal of H with |T ∩ I| = 0.If g = |Cog| 6 c, that is, if Cog is a short odd cycle, then |NH′(Cog) ∩ I| 6 cδ|I| = ε|I|,and therefore T := NH(S)∪NH′ [Cog] is an odd-cycle transversal of H with |T ∩I| 6 ε|I|.

We can now safely assume that g > c, i.e., Cog is a long odd cycle. We decompose H ′into the successive neighborhoods of Cog, which we call layers. We define the first layer asL1 := NH′(Cog). We define by induction the other layers as the non-empty sets Li := v |there exists u ∈ Li−1 with uv ∈ E(H ′) and v /∈ Lj for j < i. Let us denote by λ the indexof the last non-empty layer. Before entering into the formal details of the second part of theproof let us briefly explain its structure:

First, we observe that if there are many layers, there is one with index at most 2βε that

contains at most εβ2 n 6 ε

2 |I| of the vertices. We can thus delete this layer, and notethat connected components that do not contain Cog are bipartite. We then focus on thecomponent containing Cog, which has only few layers.Secondly, we show that this component admits an odd-cycle transversal of size at mostε2 |I| (informally, the neighborhood at distance up to O( 1

ε ) of O( 1ε ) consecutive vertices

on the cycle Cog).

In other words, we can find ε|I| vertices whose deletion yields a bipartite graph (seeFigure 1), which together with N(S) form the desired odd-cycle transversal.

Figure 1 The layers (columns) and the strata (rows of a column). If the number of successiveneighborhoods is large, a small cutset (in blue) is found among the first d 2

βεe layers. To the right

of this cutset, we know that the graph is bipartite. This brings us back to the case with fewer than2βε

layers, where we can find a small odd cycle transversal (in red).

If λ > 2βε , then there is some index i 6 d 2

βεe such that Li is of size at most βε2 n 6 ε

2 |I|.We remove that layer Li from the graph. Since iocp(H ′) = 1, the set

⋃i<j6λ Lj induces a

bipartite graph. Indeed, it is disjoint from the closed neighborhood of the odd cycle Cog.We can easily find a maximum independent set on this part of the graph, and focus on theother part, which is Cog ∪

⋃16j<i Lj . We set H ′′ := H ′[Cog ∪

⋃16j<i Lj ]. If λ 6 2

βε , we setH ′′ := H ′.

So the graph H ′′ has at most 2βε layers emanating from Cog. We will find an odd-cycle

transversal of size at most ε2 |I|. We first need some new definitions.

For 1 6 j 6 g, let Sj be the set of vertices w ∈ V (H ′) such that there is a shortest pathfrom w to Cog which ends in vj , while no shortest path from w to Cog ends in vi with i < j

(note that vj ∈ Sj). We point out that the sets (S1, . . . , Sg) induce a partition of each layer

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:9

Lk. This simply follows from the fact that for every vertex w ∈ Lk, there is a minimumindex j(w) such that there is a shortest path from v to Cog ending in vj(w). For each pair(k, `), we define a stratum as L`k := S` ∩ Lk. Note that if L`k = ∅, then for any k′ > k,L`k′ = ∅.

Let z := d 4βεe+2 and for any integer γ such that 0 6 γ 6 g

z−1, let Sγ :=⋃

γz+16j6(γ+1)zSj .

Informally, Sγ consists of the layers emanating from z consecutive vertices of Cog. Note thatif γ 6= γ′, then Sγ and Sγ′ are disjoint.I Claim 2. For any non-negative integer γ 6 2

βε , the graph B := H ′′ − Sγ is bipartite.

Proof. Observe that gz − 1 > 2

βε , so each Sγ of the claim is well-defined. It holds thatCog∩Sγ =

⋃γz+16j6(γ+1)zvj. We exhibit a proper 2-coloring of B by coloring its vertices

as follows. We start by coloring each vertex of the path Cog \ Sγ in an alternated fashion,i.e., one endpoint of the path gets color 0, its neighbor gets color 1, the next vertex getscolor 0, and so on.

For each pair (k, `) such that 1 6 k < i, 1 6 ` 6 g, and ` /∈ [γz + 1, (γ + 1)z], we colorall the vertices in the stratum L`k = S` ∩ Lk with the opposite color of the one used forthe stratum L`k−1 = S` ∩ Lk−1 (with the convention that L0 := Cog). This process colorsunambiguously all the vertices of B.

Let us prove that the resulting coloring is proper. First note that the vertices of a samestratum form an independent set. Indeed, assume by contradiction that L`k contains an edgeuw. There is a shortest path P1 from v` to u and a path P2 from w to v`. Since u and w are inthe same layer Lk, P1 and P2 have the same length; more precisely, |P1| = |P2| = k < i 6 2

βε .Thus, P1, uw, P2 defines a closed walk with 2k+1 edges. An odd closed walk of length 2k+1implies the existence of an odd induced cycle of length at most 2k+1. As 2k+1 < 4

βε+1 < g,we reach a contradiction on the minimality of Cog.

There is no edge between a stratum L`k and a stratum L`′

k′ with |k−k′| > 2, by definitionof the layers. Moreover, for 1 6 ` < `′ 6 g, there is no edge uw with u ∈ L`k and w ∈ L`

′

k′ withmin(`′− `, `+ g− `′) > 4

βε + 1 since otherwise it would be possible to construct an odd cyclestrictly shorter than Cog. Indeed if P1 is a shortest path between v` and u and P2 is a shortestpath between w and v`′ . Then, P1, uw, P2 is a walk of length k+k′+ 1. However, a shortestpath between v` and v`′ within Cog has length min(`′ − `, `+ g − `′) > 4

βε + 1 > k + k′ + 1.Hence, the walk P1, uw, P2 can be extended into an odd closed walk of length strictly smallerthan g, by taking the path from v`′ to v` in Cog with the same parity as k+k′; a contradiction.

Therefore, if there is a monochromatic edge uw in B, it must be between L`k and L`′

k′

with |k − k′| ∈ 0, 1, min(`′ − `, ` + g − `′) < 4βε + 1, and `, `′ ∩ [γz + 1, (γ + 1)z] = ∅.

We fix k, k′, `, `′ satisfying those conditions. We call small interval of ` and `′, denotedby si(`, `′), the integer interval [`, `′] if min(`′ − `, ` + g − `′) = `′ − ` and [`′, g] ∪ [1, `] ifmin(`′− `, `+ g− `′) = `+ g− `′. What we showed in the previous paragraph implies that if`, `′∩ [γz+ 1, (γ+ 1)z] = ∅, then si(`, `′)∩ [γz+ 1, (γ+ 1)z] = ∅. Indeed, the small intervalof ` and `′ is a circular interval over [1, g] of length less than 4

βε + 1 < z. In particular, thevertices of Cog indexed by the small interval of ` and `′ are all in B.

Assume first that k = k′. There is a path P1 from v` to u, and a path P2 from w tov`′ , both of length k. Since by assumption the color for L`k is the same as the color forL`′

k′ , the vertices v` and v′` have the same color (by construction of the 2-coloring). Thuswe have, in Cog − Sγ , a path P indexed by si(`, `′) from v`′ to v` of even length less than4βε + 1. We emphasize that it is crucial that si(`, `′) ∩ [γz + 1, (γ + 1)z] = ∅ (meaning thatall the vertices of Cog indexed by si(`, `′) are still in B), to deduce that there is a path ofeven length between v` and v`′ . It follows from the mere fact that v` and v′` have the same

XX:10 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

color. Finally, the concatenation P1, uw, P2, P yields an odd cycle of odd length less than2k + 1 + 4

βε + 1 6 8βε + 2 < g.

Now let us assume that |k − k′| = 1; say, without loss of generality, k′ = k + 1. In thatcase, by construction of the 2-coloring, the edge can only be monochromatic if v` and v`′

receive distinct colors. Furthermore, there is a path P1 from v` to u, and a path P2 fromw to v`′ with length of distinct parities (k and k + 1, respectively). Moreover, since v` andv`′ get distinct colors, there is in Cog − Sγ , a path P indexed by si(`, `′) from v`′ to v` ofodd length at most 4

βε + 1. Again, we crucially use that all the vertices of Cog indexedby si(`, `′) are in B, to deduce that P is of odd length from the fact that v` and v`′ getdistinct colors. Finally, the concatenation P1, uw, P2, P is an odd cycle of length less thank + 1 + k + 1 + 4

βε + 1 6 8βε + 3 < g; a contradiction.

We conclude that the 2-coloring is indeed proper. J

Algorithm 1 EPTAS for Maximum Independent Set on X (d, β, 1)Precondition: H satisfies d := VCdim(G) = O(1), α(G) > β|V (G)|, and iocp(G) 6 11: function Stable(H, ε):2: c ← 8(1/(βε)2 + 1/(βε) + 1)3: δ ← ε

c

4: s ← 10dδ log 1

δ

5: if β|V (H)| < 2s then solve H optimally by brute-force . |V (H)| = O(1/ε3)6: end if7: for _← 1 to t = 2O(1/ε3) do8: S ← uniform sample of V (G) of size s . S ⊆ I with probability > (β2 )s9: if G[S] contains an edge then break and go to the next iteration10: end if11: H ′ ← H −N [S] . remove S and its neighborhood12: Cog ← shortest odd cycle in H ′ . in polynomial time [4]13: g ← |Cog| . Cog = v1v2 . . . vg14: if g 6 c then . short odd cycle15: S ← S ∪ max stable on the bipartite H ′ −N [Cog] . iocp(G) = 116: else . long odd cycle17: L` ← vertices of H ′ at distance exactly ` from Cog18: Li ← smallest layer among L`16`6d2/βεe . |Li| 6 ε

2α(G)19: H ′′ ← H ′[Cog ∪

⋃16j<i Lj ]

20: Sk ← vertices of H ′′ whose closest vertex on Cog of minimum index is vk21: z ← d 4

βεe+ 222: Sγ ← smallest set among

⋃k∈[γz+1,(γ+1)z] Skγ∈[0,b 2

βε c] . |Sγ | 6 ε2α(G)

23: S ← S ∪ max stable on the bipartite H ′[⋃j>i Lj ] . iocp(G) = 1

24: S ← S ∪ max stable on the bipartite H ′′ − Sγ . Claim 225: end if26: end for27: return S at the iteration maximizing its cardinality28: end functionPostcondition: output S is a stable set of size at least (1− ε)α(G) with high probability

Since the sets of Sγγ∈[0,b 2βε c] are pairwise disjoint, a smallest set of the collection

satisfies |Sγ | 6 βε2 n 6 ε

2 |I|. By Claim 2, removing this Sγ from H ′′ makes the graph

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:11

bipartite. We finally compute a maximum independent set in polynomial time in H ′′ − Sγ .We return the best solution found. The pseudo-code is detailed in Algorithm 1. J

I Theorem 2. There is a randomized EPTAS for Maximum Clique on disk graphs,even without geometric representation. Its running time is 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for a (1 − ε)-approximation on a graph with n vertices.

Proof. With a geometric representation, we could invoke the following argument to get alinear maximum stable set. Recall that the piercing number of a family of geometric objectsis the minimum number of points such that each object contains at least one of those points.The piercing number of a collection of pairwise intersecting disks in the plane is 4 [19, 34].The number of faces in an arrangement of n circles (disk boundaries) is O(n2), and all thepoints within one face hits the same disks. In time O(n8), one can therefore exhaustivelyguess four points piercing a maximum clique C. We can remove all the disks which are nothit by any of those four points, since they are not part of C. This new instance G can haveits vertices partitioned into four cliques, hence α(G) > |V (G)|/4.

Without a geometric representation, we suggest the following. Disk graphs are 6ω-degenerate (and closed by induced subgraphs), i.e., there is a vertex of degree at most 6ω,where ω is the clique number of the graph. Furthermore, the neighborhood of this vertex caneasily be partitioned into 6 cliques. We can find such a vertex in polynomial time. We branchon two outcomes. Either this vertex is in a maximum clique: we run the approximation ofTheorem 1 on its closed neighborhood G which satisfies α(G) > |V (G)|/6. Or this vertexis not in any maximum clique: we delete it from the graph. Our branching tree has size2n+ 1, so it only costs an extra linear multiplicative factor.

The VC-dimension of the neighborhoods of disk graphs, and even pseudo-disk graphs[6], is at most 4. Since the VC-dimension of a graph is equal to the one of its complement,the VC-dimension of G is also at most 4. Finally, by Theorem 5 [12], iocp(G) 6 1. Weonly call the approximation algorithm (a polynomial number of times) with disk graphs Gsuch that G ∈ X (4, 1

6 , 1) (argument without the geometric representation) or G ∈ X (4, 14 , 1)

(argument with the geometric representation). Hence, we conclude by Theorem 1. J

It is known that the VC-dimension of unit balls and the piercing number of pairwiseintersecting unit balls are both constant. In Section 4, we will show that the induced oddcycle packing number of unit ball graphs is at most 1. This is the missing element for theEPTAS to also work for Maximum Clique on unit balls.

We conclude this section by extending the EPTAS to work for constant (not necessarily 1)induced odd cycle packing number.

I Theorem 6. For any constants d, i ∈ N, 0 < β 6 1, for every ε > 0, there is a randomized(1−ε)-approximation algorithm running in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for Maximum IndependentSet on graphs of X (d, β, i) with n vertices.

Proof. Let I be a maximum independent set. We show by induction on i that we can find intime 2O(1/ε′3)nO(1) a stable set of size (1− iε′)|I|. The base case is Theorem 1. We assumethat there is such an algorithm when the induced odd cycle packing number is i − 1. Wefollow Algorithm 1 with a graph H such that iocp(H) = i. On line 15 and 23, the graphis not necessarily bipartite anymore (on line 24, the resulting graph is still bipartite in thiscase). Although, the induced odd cycle packing number is decreased to i − 1. So, by theinduction hypothesis we get a stable set within a factor (1− (i− 1)ε′) of the optimum. Toget there, we removed a subset of vertices of size at most ε′|I|. Therefore, the solution S

that we obtain satisfies |S| > (1− iε′)|I|.

XX:12 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

We obtain the theorem by setting ε := iε′ since i is absorbed in the O in the runningtime. J

4 Balls and higher dimensions

We start by showing the main result of this section: for every unit ball graph G, iocp(G) 6 1.A closed polygonal chain C in Rd is defined by a set of points (or vertices) x1, x2, . . . , xp ∈ Rdas the straight-edge segments x1x2, x2x3, . . . , xp−1xp, xpx1. We call direction of a non-zerovector its equivalence class by the relation ~u ∼ ~v ⇔ ∃λ ∈ R+, ~u = λ~v. We denote thedirection of ~u by dir(~u). We define the set of directions

Needle(C) :=⋃

16i6p[xi−1 ← xi → xi+1] ∪ [xi−1 → xi ← xi+1],

where the indices are taken modulo p, [xi−1 ← xi → xi+1] := dir(−→xix) | x ∈ xi−1xi+1,and [xi−1 → xi ← xi+1] := dir(−→xxi) | x ∈ xi−1xi+1.

I Lemma 7. Let C1 and C2 be two closed polygonal chains of R3 on an odd number ofvertices each. Then, Needle(C1) ∩Needle(C2) is non-empty.

Proof. We want to establish the existence of a direction which is common to Needle(C1)and Needle(C2). For that, we yield a continuous map from R+ to Needle(C1) that wenaturally interpret as a union of curves on the 2-sphere (unit sphere in R3). Indeed the setof directions in R3 is isomorphic to the set of points on the 2-sphere. As we do not need aspecific parameterization of the curve, we just describe how we continuously move a vector−→ab whose direction runs through the entire set Needle(C1). Let x1, x2, . . . , xp be the verticesof C1.

Let us first prove that Needle(C) is a closed curve when C is an odd cycle. To do so weprove that we can continuously modify the current vector dir(−−→x1x2) into any other vector inNeedle(C). We start with a in x1 and b in x2. We continuously move a from x1 to x3 (on thestraight-edge segment x1x3) while b stays fixed at x2 (we are in moving in [x1 ← x2 → x3]).For the next step, a is fixed at x3 and b continuously moves from x2 to x4. (we are in movingin [x2 → x3 ← x4]). And in general, we move the point with index i− 1 from xi−1 to xi+1while the other point stays fixed at xi (where the indices are modulo p). Since p is odd, wereach the situation where b is set to x1 and a is set to x2 when we have completed once thewalk on the closed polygonal chain. We can repeat a walk on the chain once again, so thata is back to x1 and b is back to x2, and we stop. One may observe that this process spansNeedle(C1).

This defines a closed curve C1 on the 2-sphere since we are finally back to dir(−−→x1x2)from where we started. Furthermore, C1 is antipodal, i.e., closed by taking antipodal points.Indeed, for each direction attained in a [xi−1 ← xi → xi+1], we reach the opposite directionin [xi−1 → xi ← xi+1]. Similarly Needle(C2) draws a closed antipodal curve on the 2-sphereC2. The curves C1 and C2 intersect since they are closed and antipodal. An intersectionpoint corresponds to a direction shared by Needle(C1) and Needle(C2). J

We will apply this lemma on the closed polygonal chains C1 and C2 formed by the centersof unit balls realizing two odd cycle complements. The contradiction will come from thefact that not all the pairs of centers x ∈ C1 and y ∈ C2 can be at distance at most 2.

I Theorem 3. A complement of a unit ball graph cannot have a disjoint union of two oddcycles as an induced subgraph. In other words, if G is a unit ball graph, then iocp(G) 6 1.

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:13

Proof. Let x1, x2, . . . , xp ∈ R3 (resp. y1, y2, . . . , yq ∈ R3) be the centers of unit balls repres-enting the complement of an odd cycle of length p (resp. q), such that xi and xi+1 (resp. yiand yi+1) encode the non-adjacent pairs. Let C1 (resp. C2) be the closed polygonal chainobtained from the centers x1, x2, . . . , xp (resp. y1, y2, . . . , yq). By Lemma 7, there are twocollinear vectors −→xix and −→yjy with x on the straight-line segment xi−1xi+1 and y on thestraight-line segment yj−1yj+1.

xi

x

y

yj xi

x

yj

y

Figure 2 The two cases for the collinear vectors −→xix and −→yjy.

Let us suppose that −→xix and −→yjy have the same direction (Figure 2, left). In the plane2containing xi, x, yj , and y, those four points are in convex position and the convex hullis cyclically ordered xi, x, y, yj . We obtain a contradiction by showing that the sum of thediagonals d(xi, y) + d(yj , x) is strictly smaller than the sum of two opposite sides d(xi, x) +d(yj , y).

Considering edges and non-edges, for every i, the only vertices at distance at least 2from yi in ∪xj , yj are yi−1 and yi+1. Then, we have d(xi, yj−1) 6 2 < d(yj , yj−1) andd(xi, yj+1) 6 2 < d(yj , yj+1). The points strictly closer to xi than to yj form an openhalf-space. In particular, they form a convex set and all the points in the segment yj−1yj+1are therefore closer to xi than to yj . Hence, d(xi, y) < d(yj , y). Symmetrically, d(yj , x) <d(xi, x). So d(xi, y) + d(yj , x) < d(yj , y) + d(xi, x), a contradiction.

Let us now assume that −→xix and −→yjy have opposite direction (Figure 2, right). Inthat case, the four coplanar points xi, x, yj , y are in convex position in their plane andthe convex hull is cyclically ordered xi, x, yj , y. We will attain the similar contradictionthat d(x, y) + d(xi, yj) < d(xi, x) + d(yj , y). As previously, d(yj−1, xi−1) 6 2 < d(xi, xi−1)and d(yj−1, xi+1) 6 2 < d(xi, xi+1). Hence, by convexity, we have d(yj−1, x) < d(xi, x).Similarly, d(yj+1, x) < d(xi, x). We obtained that point x is closer to yj−1 and yj+1 thanto xi. Therefore, applying again the convexity argument, we get that d(x, y) < d(x, xi).Besides, d(xi, yj) 6 2 < d(y, yj). So we arrive at the contradiction d(x, y) + d(xi, yj) <d(x, xi) + d(y, yj). J

It is folklore that unit ball graphs have VC-dimension 4. At the price of a multiplicativefactor n in the running time, one can guess a vertex v in a maximum clique of a unit ballgraph G, and look for a clique in its neighborhood H := G[N(v)]. It can be easily shown thatthe neighborhood of this vertex (in fact, of any vertex) can be partitioned into 25 cliques,following the proof that the kissing number for unit spheres is 12. Thus α(H) > |V (H)|/25.Therefore, from Theorem 1 and Theorem 3, we immediately obtain the following.

2 or a plane if it is not unique

XX:14 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

I Theorem 4. There is a randomized EPTAS in time 2O(1/ε3)nO(1) for Maximum Cliqueon unit ball graphs, even without the geometric representation.

From Theorem 3, we also get an exact subexponential algorithm running in time 2O(n2/3)

for Maximum Clique on unit ball graphs. Indeed, such an algorithm was obtained for theclass of graphs G such that iocp(G) 6 1 [12].

In sharp contrast, we will prove that with an extra dimension or with different radii(even arbitrarily close to each other), a PTAS is highly unlikely. In both cases, we showthat there is a constant ratio which is not attainable even in subexponential time, unlessthe ETH fails. A 2-subdivision of a simple graph is the graph obtained by subdividing eachedge exactly twice. A co-2-subdivision is the complement graph of the 2-subdivision of agraph. The class of the 2-subdivisions (resp. co-2-subdivisions) is the set of all graphs thatare the 2-subdivisions (resp. co-2-subdivisions) of a simple graph.

The following result was shown by Bonnet et al.

I Theorem 8 ([12]). There is a constant α > 1 such that Maximum Clique on co-2-subdivisions is not α-approximable even in time 2n0.99 , unless the ETH fails. Moreover,Maximum Clique is NP-hard on co-2-subdivisions.

Therefore, we just need to show that all co-2-subdivisions can be realized by our geometricobjects. This appears like a simple and powerful method to rule out a PTAS (QPTAS, andeven SUBEXPAS) for a geometric clique problem.

The co-2-subdivision of a graph with n vertices and m edges can be thought of as follows.It is made of a clique on n vertices, representing the initial vertices, and a clique on 2mvertices minus a perfect matching, representing endpoints of the initial edges. Each anti-matched pair of vertices corresponds to an edge in the initial graph. Each vertex representingone endpoint of an initial edge is adjacent to all the vertices representing the initial verticesbut this endpoint.

I Theorem 9. The class of 4-dimensional unit disks contains all the co-2-subdivisions.

Proof. Given any simple graph G = (V,E) with n vertices and m edges, we want to builda set S of n+ 2m points in R4 where each vertex v is represented by a point p(v) and eachedge e, by two points p+(e) and p−(e). A pair of points in S should be at distance at most2, except if it is the two points of the same edge e, or if it is a point p(v) with either ap+(vw) or a p−(wv); those pairs should be at distance strictly more than 2. We call x, y, z, tthe coordinates of R4. Let P be the plane defined by the intersection of the hyperplanes ofequation z = 0 and t = 0. The projection π onto P of the points p+(e) (resp. p−(e)) fallregularly on the "top" part (resp. "bottom" part) of a circle C of P centered at the originO = (0, 0, 0, 0) and of diameter 2, such that for each edge e, π(p+(e)) and π(p−(e)) areantipodal on C. We just defined the points π(p+(e)) and π(p−(e)). The actual points p+(e)and p−(e) will be fixed later by moving them very slightly away from their projection ina two-dimensional plane orthogonal to P. Let η be the maximum distance between a pair(π(p+(e)), π(p−(e′))) with e 6= e′. By construction η < 2.

Let P⊥ be the (2-dimensional) plane containing the center O of C and orthogonal toP; in other words, the intersection of the hyperplanes of equation x = 0 and y = 0. Weobserve that all the points of P⊥ are equidistant to all the points π(p+(e)) and π(p−(e)).We place all the points p(v) in P⊥ regularly spaced on a arc of a circle lying on P⊥ centeredat O and of radius

√3 − ε. One can notice that for any (v, e, s) ∈ V × E × +,−,

d(p(v), π(ps(e))) =√

4− 2√

3ε+ ε2. We will choose ε 2 − η 1 so that this shared

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:15

O

P

C

π(p+(e1 ))

π(p−(e1 ))

1

P⊥p(v1)

√3− ε

Figure 3 The overall construction for 4-dimensional unit disks. We only represent the centers.

distance is just below 2 and the points p+(e), p−(e)e∈E realize the same adjacencies thantheir projection by π.

For every e = uv ∈ E, we place p+(e) such that−−−−−−−−−−→π(p+(e))p+(e) = − (ε+ε′)

‖Op(u)‖−−−→Op(u) and

p−(e) such that−−−−−−−−−−→π(p−(e))p−(e) = − (ε+ε′)

‖Op(v)‖−−−→Op(v). In words, we push very slightly p+(e)

(resp. p−(e)) away from π(p+(e)) (resp. π(p−(e))) in the opposite direction of−−−→Op(u) (resp.

−−−→Op(v)). This way, p+(e) is at distance more than 2 from p(u). Indeed, d(p+(e), p(u)) =‖−−−−−−−−−−→p+(e)π(p+(e))+

−−−−−−−→π(p+(e))O+

−−−→Op(u)‖ = ‖

−−−−−−−→π(p+(e))O+

−−−→Op(u)+

−−−−−−−−−−→p+(e)π(p+(e))‖ = ‖

−−−−−−−→π(p+(e))O+

(√

3− ε+ ε+ ε′)−−−−→Op(u)‖−−−−→Op(u)‖

‖ =√

1 + (√

3 + ε′)2 > 2. Similarly, d(p−(e), p(v)) > 2. We chooseε′ infinitesimal (in particular, ε′ ε) so that, still, d(p+(e), p(w)) < 2 for any w 6= u andd(p−(e), p(w)) < 2 for any w 6= v. J

I Corollary 10. There is a constant α > 1 such that Maximum Clique on 4-dimensionalunit disks is not α-approximable even in time 2n0.99 , unless the ETH fails. Moreover, Max-imum Clique is NP-hard on 4-dimensional unit disks.

The proof of Theorem 9 can be tweaked for balls of different radii. For a real ε > 0, wesay that the radii of a representation (or the representation itself) are ε-close if the radii areall contained in the interval [1, 1 + ε]. We denote by B(1, 1 + ε) the ball graphs having anε-close representation.

I Theorem 11. For any ε > 0, the subclass of ball graphs B(1, 1 + ε) contains all theco-2-subdivisions.

Proof. Let x, y, z be the coordinates of R3. We start similarly and define the same π(p+(e))and π(p−(e)) as in the previous construction for the points p+(e) and p−(e) on a circle Cof diameter 2 centered at O = (0, 0, 0) on a plane P of equation z = 0. One differenceis that π(p+(e)) and π(p−(e)) are no longer projections. We then place the points p(v)regularly spaced along the z-axis. More precisely, if the vertices are numbered v1, v2, . . . , vn,the position of p(vi) is (0, 0,

√3 + iε′). The radius of the disk representing vi centered at

p(vi) is set to ri :=√

1 + (√

3 + iε′)2 − 1 + ε′′. The radii associated to the centers p+(e)and p−(e) are all set to 1. We move p+(vivj) (resp. p−(vivj)) away from π(p+(vivj))(resp. π(p−(vivj))) in the opposite direction of

−−−−−−−−−→p+(vivj)p(vi) (resp.

−−−−−−−−−→p−(vivj)p(vj)) by an

infinitesimal quantity, in order to only suppress the overlap of the disks centered at p+(vivj)and p(vi) (resp. p−(vivj) and p(vj)). We make ε′ and ε′′ small enough that all the valuesri are between 1 and 1 + ε. J

XX:16 EPTAS for Max Clique on Disks and Unit Balls

We call quasi unit ball graphs those graphs in the intersection⋂ε>0 B(1, 1 + ε). As a

corollary, we get some strong inapproximability even for quasi unit ball graphs.

I Corollary 12. There is a constant α > 1 such that Maximum Clique on quasi unit ballgraphs is not α-approximable even in time 2n0.99 , unless the ETH fails. Moreover, MaximumClique is NP-hard on quasi unit ball graphs.

5 Remarks and further directions

The algorithm of Theorem 1 also works for weighted graphs. The slight modifications toapproximate Maximum Weighted Independent Set consist in sampling S proportionallyto the weights, and to remove the lightest layer Li (among the first d2/βεe) and the lightestset Sγ (rather than the ones of minimum size). We then use repeatedly that MaximumWeighted Independent Set can be solved in polynomial time on bipartite graphs.

This implies a randomized EPTAS for Maximum Weighted Clique on disk graphsand unit ball graphs, with the same arguments used to get |I| > β|V (G)|. Now, what weobtain is w(I) > βw(V (G)) where w is the weight function and w(X) := Σu∈Xw(u).

One might wonder what is the constant hidden in O(1) in the time complexity of therandomized EPTAS f(ε)nO(1). Here is how to achieve near quadratic time f(ε)n2 lognwhere n is the number of vertices of our unit ball graph G (even without a geometricrepresentation). The first observation is that instead of finding an optimum stable set ina bipartite graph (which we do several times as a subroutine), one only needs a 1 + ε-approximation of it. This can be done in time f(ε)m, where m is the number of edges [20].We also need to overcome our first branching guess of a vertex which belongs to an optimalsolution (and hence multiply by n our complexity). To achieve this, we start by packinggreedily disjoint neighborhoods N(v1), N(v2), . . . , N(vk) of G, while it is possible. Then weconsider the set of subgraphs G1, G2, ..., Gk induced by the vertices at distance at most 3of v1, v2, ..., vk, respectively. Observe that by maximality of the packing, every vertex is atdistance at most 2 of some vi, and thus, every edge, and even every clique of G belongs toat least one Gi. By a volume argument, any vertex, and thus any edge, belongs to at mosta constant number of graphs Gi. Thus we only need to compute the maximum clique overthe graphs Gi, each with number of edges mi, with the property that

∑ki=1 mi = O(m).

Now, the difference is that the clique number of each Gi is at least a constant fraction ofits number of vertices, so the sampling step succeeds with probability at least a positiveconstant. We consider the complement of each graph Gi and approximate the independencenumber. The main and only obstacle is that finding a shortest odd cycle in quadratic timeseems hopeless. Indeed, the other elements of the algorithm: removing N [S], computingthe sets Li and Sγ , removing the lightest of them, and 1 + ε-approximating the maximumstable set in a bipartite graph, can all be done in quadratic time.

We only compute one (not necessarily shorter) odd cycle of length h, via breadth-firstsearch for instance. We can assume that h = ω(1/ε2) otherwise we are done. We takepotentially thicker slices for Sγ : instead of z = Θ(1/ε) consecutive strata, we take 10βεhconsecutive strata. Either the suggested 2-coloring of H ′′−Sγ is proper and we are done. Orthere is a monochromatic edge, which, going through the different cases of Claim 2, yieldsa new odd cycle of length O(1/ε) (which is an easy case to handle) or short-cutting theprevious odd cycle by at least Ω(εh) vertices. In the latter case, our new odd cycle is shorterby a constant multiplicative factor 1 − ε. Hence, after at most O(logn) improvements, wefind an odd cycle which is small enough to conclude. Therefore, the overall complexity ofthe algorithm is f(ε)n2 logn.

M. Bonamy, É. Bonnet, N. Bousquet, P. Charbit, S. Thomassé XX:17

The obvious remaining question is the complexity of Maximum Clique in disk graphsand in unit ball graphs. An interesting direction would be to find a toy problem on which wecould prove NP-hardness. A nice class, which appears to be a subclass of unit ball graphs,is that of the so-called Borsuk graphs: We are given some (small) real ε > 0 and a finitecollection V of unit vectors in R3. The Borsuk graph B(V, ε) has vertex set V and its edgesare all pairs v, v′ whose dot product is at most −1 + ε (i.e. near antipodal).

The difficulty of computing the (weighted) independence number on Borsuk graphs isalso an open question. One can go one simplification step further and focus on a subclassof Borsuk graphs, namely quadrangulations of the projective plane. These well-studiedobjects have the striking property to be either bipartite or 4-chromatic. The complexityof Maximum Weighted Independent Set is open for 4-chromatic quadrangulations.Finally, the last simplification step in this direction is the following.

I Problem 1. What is the computational complexity of Maximum Weighted Independ-ent Set on the moebius grid?

By moebius grid we mean a grid with an even number of columns in which the first andlast columns are antipodally identified. Note that, in this example, every two odd cyclesintersect (ocp = 1). However, there is no small odd-cycle transversal. If the size of the gridis√n×√n, then the smallest odd-cycle transversal has size roughly

√n.

A second question is to derandomize the EPTAS. The difficulty here is concentrated inthe sampling. The VC-dimension argument seems easy to deal with, however we need thatour sampling falls in the maximum independent set (or at least in some independent setwhich is close to maximum).

Another natural question is to find a superclass of geometric intersection graphs whichboth contain unit balls and disks. More generally, is it possible to explain why we have thesame forbidden induced subgraph (the complement of a disjoint union of two odd cycles)for disk graphs and unit ball graphs? So far, the proofs that this is indeed an obstruction(see Theorem 6 in [12] and Theorem 3 of this paper) are quite different for the two classes.

Let us call quasi unit disk graphs those disk graphs that can be realized for any ε > 0with disks having all the radii in the interval [1, 1 + ε]. Recall that we showed that, for theclique problem, quasi unit ball graphs are unlikely to have a QPTAS, while unit ball graphsadmit an EPTAS. In dimension 2, it can be easily shown that unit disk graphs form a propersubset of quasi unit disk graphs, which form themselves a proper subset of disk graphs. Canwe find for this intermediate class an efficient exact algorithm solving Maximum Clique?

I Problem 2. Is there a polynomial-time algorithm for Maximum Clique on quasi unitdisk graphs?

Our PTAS works for Maximum Independent Set under three hypotheses. While it isclear that we crucially need that iocp > 1 (or at least that iocp is constant), as far as wecan tell, the boundedness of the VC-dimension and the fact that the solution is fairly largemight not be required.

I Problem 3. Is there a PTAS for Maximum Independent Set on graphs without theunion of two odd cycles as an induced subgraph?

Atminas and Zamaraev [7] showed that the complement of K2 + Cs is not a unit diskgraph when s is odd (where K2 is an edge and Cs is a cycle on s vertices). Is this obstructionenough to obtain an alternative polynomial-time algorithm for Maximum Clique on unitdisk graphs?

XX:18 REFERENCES

I Problem 4. Is Maximum Independent Set solvable in polynomial-time on graphs ex-cluding the union of an edge and an odd cycle as an induced subgraph?

References

1 P. Afshani and T. M. Chan. Approximation algorithms for maximum cliques in 3dunit-disk graphs. In Proceedings of the 17th Canadian Conference on ComputationalGeometry, CCCG’05, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, August 10-12, 2005,pages 19–22, 2005.

2 P. Afshani and H. Hatami. Approximation and inapproximability results for maximumclique of disc graphs in high dimensions. Inf. Process. Lett., 105(3):83–87, 2008.

3 J. Alber and J. Fiala. Geometric separation and exact solutions for the parameterizedindependent set problem on disk graphs. J. Algorithms, 52(2):134–151, 2004.

4 N. Alon, R. Yuster, and U. Zwick. Finding and counting given length cycles. Algorith-mica, 17(3):209–223, 1997.

5 C. Ambühl and U. Wagner. The Clique Problem in Intersection Graphs of Ellipses andTriangles. Theory Comput. Syst., 38(3):279–292, 2005.

6 B. Aronov, A. Donakonda, E. Ezra, and R. Pinchasi. On pseudo-disk hypergraphs.CoRR, abs/1802.08799, 2018.

7 A. Atminas and V. Zamaraev. On forbidden induced subgraphs for unit disk graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.08148, 2016.

8 J. Bang-Jensen, B. Reed, M. Schacht, R. Šámal, B. Toft, and U. Wagner. On six problemsposed by Jarik Nešetřil. Topics in Discrete Mathematics, pages 613–627, 2006.

9 C. Biró, É. Bonnet, D. Marx, T. Miltzow, and P. Rzążewski. Fine-grained complexityof coloring unit disks and balls. In 33rd International Symposium on ComputationalGeometry, SoCG 2017, July 4-7, 2017, Brisbane, Australia, pages 18:1–18:16, 2017.

10 A. Blumer, A. Ehrenfeucht, D. Haussler, and M. K. Warmuth. Learnability and theVapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. J. ACM, 36(4):929–965, 1989.

11 A. Bock, Y. Faenza, C. Moldenhauer, and A. J. Ruiz-Vargas. Solving the Stable Set Prob-lem in Terms of the Odd Cycle Packing Number. In 34th International Conference onFoundation of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FSTTCS 2014,December 15-17, 2014, New Delhi, India, pages 187–198, 2014.

12 É. Bonnet, P. Giannopoulos, E. J. Kim, P. Rzążewski, and F. Sikora. QPTAS andsubexponential algorithm for maximum clique on disk. SoCG 2018 (to appear).

13 A. Brandstädt, V. B. Le, and J. P. Spinrad. Graph classes: a survey. SIAM, 1999.14 H. Breu and D. G. Kirkpatrick. Unit disk graph recognition is NP-hard. Comput. Geom.,

9(1-2):3–24, 1998.15 S. Cabello. Maximum clique for disks of two sizes. Open problems from Geometric

Intersection Graphs: Problems and Directions CG Week Workshop, Eindhoven, June25, 2015 (http://cgweek15.tcs.uj.edu.pl/problems.pdf), 2015. [Online; accessed07-December-2017].

16 S. Cabello. Open problems presented at the Algorithmic Graph Theory on the Ad-riatic Coast workshop, Koper, Slovenia (https://conferences.matheo.si/event/6/picture/35.pdf). June 16-19 2015.

17 T. M. Chan. Polynomial-time approximation schemes for packing and piercing fat ob-jects. J. Algorithms, 46(2):178–189, 2003.

18 B. N. Clark, C. J. Colbourn, and D. S. Johnson. Unit disk graphs. Discrete Mathematics,86(1-3):165–177, 1990.

REFERENCES XX:19

19 L. Danzer. Zur lösung des gallaischen problems über kreisscheiben in der euklidischenebene. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar, 21(1-2):111–134, 1986.

20 R. Duan and S. Pettie. Linear-time approximation for maximum weight matching. J.ACM, 61(1):1:1–1:23, 2014.

21 T. Erlebach, K. Jansen, and E. Seidel. Polynomial-time approximation schemes forgeometric intersection graphs. SIAM J. Comput., 34(6):1302–1323, 2005.

22 A. V. Fishkin. Disk graphs: A short survey. In K. Jansen and R. Solis-Oba, edit-ors, Approximation and Online Algorithms, First International Workshop, WAOA 2003,Budapest, Hungary, September 16-18, 2003, Revised Papers, volume 2909 of LectureNotes in Computer Science, pages 260–264. Springer, 2003.

23 M. Gibson and I. A. Pirwani. Algorithms for dominating set in disk graphs: Breaking thelogn barrier - (extended abstract). In Algorithms - ESA 2010, 18th Annual EuropeanSymposium, Liverpool, UK, September 6-8, 2010. Proceedings, Part I, pages 243–254,2010.

24 S. Har-Peled, H. Kaplan, W. Mulzer, L. Roditty, P. Seiferth, M. Sharir, and M. Willert.Stabbing pairwise intersecting disks by five points. CoRR, abs/1801.03158, 2018.

25 D. Haussler and E. Welzl. Epsilon-nets and simplex range queries. pages 61–71, 1986.26 R. J. Kang and T. Müller. Sphere and Dot Product Representations of Graphs. Discrete

& Computational Geometry, 47(3):548–568, 2012.27 P. Koebe. Kontaktprobleme der konformen Abbildung. Hirzel, 1936.28 D. Marx and M. Pilipczuk. Optimal parameterized algorithms for planar facility location

problems using voronoi diagrams. In Algorithms - ESA 2015 - 23rd Annual EuropeanSymposium, Patras, Greece, September 14-16, 2015, Proceedings, pages 865–877, 2015.

29 T. A. McKee and F. R. McMorris. Topics in intersection graph theory. SIAM, 1999.30 T. Nieberg and J. Hurink. A PTAS for the minimum dominating set problem in unit

disk graphs. In Approximation and Online Algorithms, Third International Workshop,WAOA 2005, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, October 6-7, 2005, Revised Papers, pages 296–306, 2005.

31 T. Nieberg, J. Hurink, and W. Kern. A robust PTAS for maximum weight independ-ent sets in unit disk graphs. In Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 30thInternational Workshop,WG 2004, Bad Honnef, Germany, June 21-23, 2004, RevisedPapers, pages 214–221, 2004.

32 V. Raghavan and J. P. Spinrad. Robust algorithms for restricted domains. J. Algorithms,48(1):160–172, 2003.

33 W. D. Smith and N. C. Wormald. Geometric separator theorems & applications. In 39thAnnual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS ’98, November 8-11,1998, Palo Alto, California, USA, pages 232–243, 1998.

34 L. Stachó. A solution of gallai’s problem on pinning down circles. Mat. Lapok, 32(1-3):19–47, 1981.

35 E. J. van Leeuwen. Better approximation schemes for disk graphs. In Algorithm Theory -SWAT 2006, 10th ScandinavianWorkshop on Algorithm Theory, Riga, Latvia, July 6-8,2006, Proceedings, pages 316–327, 2006.

36 E. J. van Leeuwen. Optimization and Approximation on Systems of Geometric Objects.PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 2009.

37 V. N. Vapnik and A. Y. Chervonenkis. On the uniform convergence of relative frequenciesof events to their probabilities. In Measures of complexity, pages 11–30. Springer, 2015.